Bella

Most everyone can relate to the idea of self defense against a person that would do them or their family harm. We see it everyday on the news, where it is/was required. And who hasn't been in a predicament where they had to resort to self defense. What is more abstract is the need to defend against a government. How many of us have actually experienced it? This is why I think, when everyone talks about the 2nd amendment they talk about it in terms they can relate to.

It is important to remember that the 2nd amendment wasn't designed to defend against only criminals.

"I did read Miller, it was about 30 years ago in law school. It was the only case really discussing the 2nd. It was generally considered a weak opinion then, and of very little value because it wasn't really contested. No briefs were filed by the defendants, and no attorneys appeared and argued for them either. These facts were brought out in the majority and dissent in Heller. Both sides shied away from Miller and didn't give it much precidental value, other than the government can ban certain tyoes of guns, a saw offed shotgu for example." The defendant in Miller passed away. He/his attorneys were not present to give evidence that sawed-off shotguns were in fact in use during WWI, I believe it was. Thus, the court found that since it had not been proven to be 'in common use' it could be banned and thus the reason no one can legally own a sawed-off shotgun. Had the defendant been able to present his evidence perhaps even sawed-off shot guns would be legal.

Respectfully, your premise is incorrect in that you seem to think government gave us the right to defend ourselves and thus they can take it away. This isn't so. The Right is inherent in every Man to defend himself. Government can no more take it from you than they can demand you cut off your arm.The 2nd Amendment will never go away, as long as our current form of government exists. And that is the key: AS LONG AS OUR CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT EXISTS. The 2nd amendment is part of the fabric of the nation - part of the building block. Remove the block and we are no longer the same nation. If they assume the authority to rob you of your ability to defend yourself then why couldn't they just assume ALL power over you. And really, by extension, wouldn't that be what they are doing? This is what I believe the founders were writing about. They were telling the government that they do not have ultimate authority over us. The assumption is that in order to eliminate the 2nd amendment is would require another amendment. Think that's going to happen? Not likely. But I would argue even then, how can it be that an entity CREATED BY MAN (government) can then have the ultimate authority over man and tell them YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND YOURSELF? It cannot. It fly's in the face of the very basic maxims of law. Can you contract away your Rights? Hmm. Therein lies a very interesting rabbit hole. Give up/let them take that right, and you might as well invite a dictatorship that controls every facet of your life. In my humble opinion. I agree with you that the right to defend one's self is a right that preixsted the Bill of Rights. I don't agree that if you remove a provision of the Constitution, or one of the amendments, that it necessarily changes the country into something else. Many provisions of the constitution have changed, been amended, or completely new. The VP is completely different, the electiob of senators is entirely different. The South was convinced that sky would fall if slavery was eliminated, it didn't. They were convinced it would fall again if segragation ended, it didn't. People were utterly convinced the country was headed for ruin if women got the vote. Well I guess the jury is still out on that one. You don't have to repeal the 2nd amendment to have common sense gun cintrol. I'm not advocating for that, just stating was is clearly allowable under Heller and McDonald. The right to self defense, regardless of where it originated from doesn't mysteriously disappear with handgun regulation., Firstly, I am talking specifically about the Bill of Rights and not about the Constitution. Even more specifically the first 10. None of the first 10 amendments have ever been altered or repealed. They are our 'Natural Rights.' All of the Amendments that follow are commandments - if you will, of a government. Prohibition certainly wasn't a right yet it is an amendment in the Bill of Rights. Repealing prohibition would certainly not change the fabric of the nation. Repealing the 1st amendment, if I understand you correctly, wouldn't either? Repeal the 4th and our nation stands intact? I would argue vigorously that it would not. Do you not ascribe special status to our Natural Rights? I think we would agree that common sense gun control is a logical construct and even though, to my understanding, "well regulated" has never been fully addressed by SCOTUS, it would fall under those two words. However, as I mentioned in another thread (or perhaps earlier in this one), Miller addresses this masterfully. Who could argue that a ban on semi-automatic handguns/rifles would be constitutional because they aren't weapons in common use today? With Miller in mind and if we account for the founders' vision that should WE THE PEOPLE ever be required to overthrow an oppressive government, then logically we would require weapons 'commonly used' by the governments agents? That would include fully automatic weapons would it not? "You don't have to repeal the 2nd amendment to have common sense gun cintrol. I'm not advocating for that, just stating was is clearly allowable under Heller and McDonald." I demur to your convictions in the above statement. Can you impart the language SCOTUS used that would 'clearly allow' the 2nd Amendment to be repealed? Perhaps I am not as familiar with Heller and McDonald as I should be. "The right to self defense, regardless of where it originated from doesn't mysteriously disappear with handgun regulation.," Consider the following fictitious scenario: A deranged and very large individual is approaching you menacingly with what appears to be a very long machete. You are standing there, innocently, with your wife and kids. He looks intent on doing you and your family harm. On a table before you are three tools: A hammer, a knife, and a semi-automatic handgun. The handgun has been made illegal by government to use and consequently has had the firing pin filed down. You are left with the hammer, a knife, and a paperweight. The outcome, while not certain, looks bleak. Even worse, replace YOU with a woman. The above scenario, while made up, isn't all that far fetched. So yes, while I would have to technically agree that your right to self defense hasn't disappeared, I can confidently argue that neither you or any of your family will survive. Therefore, effectively, your Right to self defense has been taken away.

Where is that one written? Dave There are vague references in the Magna Carta and even more direct references in the English Bill of Rights. But does it need to be written? And would it matter who had written it? Would anyone argue that even a caveman, being attacked by a saber-toothed tiger, would not be allowed to defend himself without the consent of a government had one existed? Dare I say none of us would be here had he not? And I doubt a stone tablet existed to instruct him of his Right. ~

Respectfully, your premise is incorrect in that you seem to think government gave us the right to defend ourselves and thus they can take it away. This isn't so. The Right is inherent in every Man to defend himself. Government can no more take it from you than they can demand you cut off your arm. The 2nd Amendment will never go away, as long as our current form of government exists. And that is the key: AS LONG AS OUR CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT EXISTS. The 2nd amendment is part of the fabric of the nation - part of the building block. Remove the block and we are no longer the same nation. If they assume the authority to rob you of your ability to defend yourself then why couldn't they just assume ALL power over you. And really, by extension, wouldn't that be what they are doing? This is what I believe the founders were writing about. They were telling the government that they do not have ultimate authority over us. The assumption is that in order to eliminate the 2nd amendment is would require another amendment. Think that's going to happen? Not likely. But I would argue even then, how can it be that an entity CREATED BY MAN (government) can then have the ultimate authority over man and tell them YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND YOURSELF? It cannot. It fly's in the face of the very basic maxims of law. Can you contract away your Rights? Hmm. Therein lies a very interesting rabbit hole. Give up/let them take that right, and you might as well invite a dictatorship that controls every facet of your life. In my humble opinion.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable. Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right. am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms? Steve The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Their rulings were in regards to handguns as they are the most commonly used firearms carried for self defense. I suspect that you may see future litigation regarding what constitutes firearms commonly used for self defense. This was already addressed in U.S. v Miller 1939. The phrase in that opinion is "[Militia] when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Very interesting sentence that gets no attention today. Read Miller, very interesting case beyond it establishing what weapons are allowed to the militia.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller. They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks. States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable. Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right. am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms? Steve Here is the current definition of Militia: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

I'm not sure in what context you are advocating for change. But here are my initial thoughts on it: All too often, especially in our current environment, we seem to want change for the sake of change. The Constitution and Bill of Rights took years (a decade?)of squabble to formulate. The Patriot Act took a month. The ACA wasn't even read before being passed into law. The president is about to issue Executive Orders on gun control in response to the recent shootings (Illegally?). Knee jerk reactions without careful consideration and debate in a country this size without truly knowing the affect is dangerous. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we are in the trouble we are in as a nation.

Well since my vote would only count for 3/5 and I am a female, I suppose I should just sit down and be quiet.

I've often wondered about where freedom of speech ends and treason begins. We are a Republic. Could it not be argued that actively promoting socialism/communism/whateverism is an attempt to overthrow our established form of government? But I digress. That is a topic for another thread.

It was not my intent to offend, but I sense you invited it without reservation. My post was simply to point out that what was once less accepted is now more mainstream, and the reverse being true also. I fear my example was poor in that it left room for literal interpretation. Thanks for the advice to research Freedom of Speech more thoroughly. But I feel I've got a pretty good grasp already.

Well I am listening? What is the solution? Welcome to the forum! Thank You! I was hoping you would tell me. Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites. Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not. It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now. sounds bout right. welcome It is simple. Arm the kids. Teach them gun safety and marksmanship in grades 1, 2 and 3. Start arming them in 4th, 5th and 6th. Instead of fire drills, you conduct shooter drills. By the time they are in Jr. and high school it would be the last place a crazy gunman would show up. They will have to concentrate on churchs, movie theaters and old folks homes. Kids who did well in marksmanship can get jobs sitting in churches, theaters and retirement homes ready to pounce. It is a win-win. Keeps gun makers employed, kids learn learn math skills re: balastics, creates jobs, and the top shooters can compete against other schools. I think you could probably fund the whole thing by cutting just a sport or two. In Texas our solution in this last legislature was to arm teachers and allow folks to openly carry guns on their person. They need to think bigger in my opinion. Where I work there is a man who stands at the employee exit gate handing out a newsletter to the employees as they drive off. I've never taken one of them, but I can see the large print at the top: SOCIALIST NEWS LETTER. 50 years ago such a position would be akin to treason. Today it is talked about openly. Your idea would have been perfectly acceptable nationwide 50 years ago. Today many would call you an extremist.

Sorry, new here, so maybe my opinion doesn't count for much. And that's fine. But isn't pointing out the offensive signature playing right into the hands of the culprit? It is his/her stated intent, and now by making a whole thread about it, did he/she not attain the goal? Is posting about this not the actions of an unwitting accomplice? I myself do not put much credence into the disruptive activities of others. If one chooses to be an ***, let him be an *** unto himself. Respectfully

The demise of Lennon to be termed 'poetic justice'? There is speak of cycles. Cycles of society; economics; politics; war. Perhaps it is the cycle we are in and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. The cycle must run its course, onto the next phase. Usually though, when there is this much disease (and I define that to include more than just crazy people shooting other people) the cycle ends with a cleansing. War.

Well I am listening? What is the solution? Welcome to the forum! Thank You! I was hoping you would tell me. Well, as I said, we are being assaulted, so let's devise a defense to at least mitigate the damage. I think we could all agree that schools seem to be the favorite target right now. So let's devise a defense to keep our children safe, shall we? I propose immediate defensive measures to include additional police resources. Yes, defend the schools with armed guards. Permanently? Perhaps no. But at least until we can get our footing and identify what our issues are so that we can eventually work towards a workable solution. How do we fund this effort? Well our government spends billions on needless crap every year. I'm sure we can rummage up a few billion to finance this program. Some might see armed guards at our schools as a drastic action. I would like to point out that we guard our courthouses with armed guards and metal detectors. We guard our state legislative buildings with armed guards. We guard our airports. Heck, I've even seen police officers sitting in their cars at road construction sites. Now tell me, are our children any less valuable than these people? My child certainly is not. It's a start. It's not necessarily the final result. And frankly, it's better than what we are doing now.

"You might be arguing about guns. But that want the premise of the thread. The country is creating more sociopathic killers than statistics would predict for a rich country. The question is why is this happening, and of course how do we change it. We have an extraordinary tolerance for school shootings. What are we doing wrong?" Yes, and a great topic it is! But the thread is also laced with comments about guns and how they are the problem. My first post was just to point out that is just noise and not the root of the issue. We will not solve this by banning or limiting firearms. It is much, much deeper than that. And as I said, firearms are incorporated into the very fabric of our nation. They aren't going anywhere so best to focus on real, substantive solutions.

1. yup. 2. yup. 3. yup. 4. yup. There are always politics in the debate on how to deal with the issues however, and this one is no different. On the one side you've got demands for more control. Now depending on how you define 'control' it could be a very useful tool. But it could also be a slippery slope. And this is the rebuttal of the other side. They believe that if the door is opened to more control, it will simply lead to more... control. I think the middle ground here is everybody can agree crazy people should not own guns. It is a starting point. But it doesn't seem to be a political starting point, because I cannot find any reasonable person advocating for more control to admit that it isn't the tool the crazy person chooses, but that it is the crazy person we should be focusing on.

Hello! Long time lurker. This topic has caused me to create an account and chime in. Firstly, I have much sorrow in my heart for the mass-shootings and deaths that have plagued our country for the last few years. It is clear that something has gone wrong. What is not clear is how we address this problem. I'd like to start off by pointing out first that the Right to self defense is not negotiable. Period. And in this country that Right is afforded to all able bodied Men of age. So any talk to eliminate or curtail that basic human right should be off the table. Seriously, who would argue against self defensive measures? When you are being assaulted what is the first reaction? Defense. Stop/mitigate/limit the damage. We aren't doing any of that. Instead we are bickering and arguing about guns. Which, as I just stated, is this nations chosen and well documented form of self-defense. So they aren't going away. If you want to be productive in this dilemma, provide a logical solution. All else is noise and frankly, a diversion that is keeping us from getting to the point where we can move forward with a solution to our problems. Help, or get out of the way so that we can start saving lives.